Dr. Satish Chandra, J.: -

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 117 of 2001 whereby an award of Rs.1,18,850/- was awarded against the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case in narrow compass are that on 02.12.2000, one Sri Arvind Kumar was going on scooter to see off his relative. When he reached near Hyderabad Paisara, one Tractor No. U.P. 35-B 1649 took a sharp turn. The Iron Rods loaded in the trolley (trailer) attached to the tractor in question hits the deceased Arvind Kumar, who died on the spot. The FIR was lodged. The Tractor was insured but trolley was not insured. So, the liability was fixed against the owner of the Tractor i.e. appellant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for Rs.1,18,850/-. Being aggrieved, he filed the present appeal.

3. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trailer is the part of the tractor and tractor was duly insured. Independently, the tractor or trolley is not of any use. With the tractor, some equipments or trolley will have to be attached for the purpose of agricultural activity. He further submits that trailer/trolley falls within the definition of the vehicles, as such, it is an attachment made to the prime mover of tractor and it has no independent driving system. Therefore, it is not required to be insured under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

4. According to the appellant's counsel, deceased was driving the scooter without holding any valid license. He also submits that at the time of accident, the tractor was used to transport the bricks and iron rods for the purpose of construction of Pakki Boring in a room to secure the boring equipments for irrigation purposes. So, the tractor was used for agricultural purposes. Its driver was having the valid driving license to drive the tractor and at the time of accident, the tractor was duly insured. So, the liability will have to be fixed against the insurance company. He relied on the ratio laid down in the cases of Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.; 2001 A.C.J. 1441; 2001 (3) T.A.C. 511 and also a judgement in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J. Kotiratnama, 2000 (3) An. W.R. 91.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the tractor was insured but trolley was not insured. No premium was paid for the trolley as per Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submits that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of agricultural use but the appellant was carrying the bricks and iron rods in the trolley. So, it is the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Again, he repeated that the trolley is not the part of the tractor as no premium for the trolley was paid to the insurance company.

6. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record.

7. There is no dispute regarding the accident or amount of compensation. The only dispute is that who will pay the compensation i.e. the owner of the tractor or the insurance company.

8. In the instant case, the tractor in question (No. U.P. 35-B 1649) was duly insured with the insurance company. Admittedly, no separate premium was paid for the trolley. This was the specific defense taken by the insurance company.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Chinnamma and others; 2004 (3) TAC 577 SC defines the meaning of tractor and trailer, which reads as under:

"Tractor: 'tractor' means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of population); but excludes a road roller.

Trailer: trailer means by any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicles."

10. In the case of Parsottambha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document